reserves the write to appeal, amend or abolish the act. the federal government said you've been taking these dollars knowing this the whole time. the supreme court today kind of crafted the rule that said that violates -- and they said you can't threat the states with the loss of their federal funds. at least in this dramatic way. time will tell whether or not this is something that's going to be a harbinger of things to come or not. >> last question is on the anti-injunction act review, earlier we talked to a reporter and the the description was seeming incongruity which has to do with whether or not the mandate was ta tax. and the chief jus's finding it was a tax and therefore stood. what's your lawyer's perspective on that? the anti-injunction act was extremely technical argument.

i remember spending weeks and weeks trying to get to the bottom of it when i was defending the law. at the end of it, it's really technical. and what is a tax for anne injunction act purposes does not govern what is a tax for constitutional purposes when we think about the 1787 constitution. essentially there is a different between the two. and the supreme court today picked up on that difference. >> the two decisions can stand side by side and be con grewous. >> exactly. >> as we close here, this closing day of the court and wondering what's next for you as the summer progresses? this has been quite a long process for you coming to this conclusion day. >> i'm going to hopefully get a little rest in the days to come. >> that's the part i was expecting to hear from you.

thank you so much. >> thank you. >> to our viewers if you missed the introduction, the former solicitor responsible for arguing this case in the lore courts including the 11th circuit case that ultimately came to the supreme court. we have about 15 minutes until we hear from the speaker of the house with his reaction to today and what is in store next for the regarding health care policy, legislation. til then your calls and tweets. let's go to carter'sville, georgia. lauren is a democrat. >> caller: thank you very much. i want to thank president obama for fighting for the voiceless. this is a step, a big step for america. everyone needs health care. this is going to put this country back to work. for the republicans to sit here and try to fight something that's good, you've got to be careful what you vote on. thank you. >> and next up from moore,

oklahoma, mike, a republican. you're on. >> caller: thank you very much. that caller is right. the only thing is it's not going to put people back to work. that's the problem. people are out of work right now. they do have not the money to pay the fines that the federal government can levy against these people who do not take the health care. what this country needs is jobs first. jobs will actually define who is going to win this election coming up. but as far as the health care bill is concerned, i was totally against it. i believe that it's still unconstitutional. i believe we do need to do something with our health care center. but don't make a mandate that says everybody has to do this. this is not what this country was founded on. i think the federal government was divided in three parts. and i think for some reason our congressman, our courts and our presidency has failed to look at

what the constitution actually says about the distribution of power between everybody. and not to listen to the american people in my opinion is a very sad commentary for today. >> mike from moore, oklahoma. on twitter americanhero tweets, some people are talking like obama care provides, that's in quotes, something to someone. nebs a call from clearwater, florida, barbara an independent. good afternoon, you're on. >> caller: good afternoon. i want to voice an opinion on the affordable care act and the health care bill. and i just want people to understand that they need to listen to the newspapers and all the pundits out there and find out really what's in this bill. i don't think that 40% of the people even know what's in the bill. so farce i'm concerned i'm for it until i hear something that's

in there that is against what i believe. now i get the "tampa bay times." they put a lot of political facts in here. and the boogie man's been around here for two years telling us what lies are not in this bill. so i think people can just hold on and just listen to what really this bill is about. >> thank you bar br from florida. laura moon on twitter writes this, the aca is far from perfect just like congress and just like my human endeavor. next up is a call from alexander who's a democrat from west valley, utah. >> caller: how's it going? i believe that all of this democrat versus republican like fighting back and forth is the chicken before the egg argument, honestly. there's been problems inside of the american economy. and i believe that obama care it

did what set back our country a little bit. that is licks. i think with this new bill and i commend nancy pelosi. she was handling her questions write well. i think the media should direct us towards safety until we can confront our financial issues until we can afford affordable health care and until we can resolve the issues for our children who are also sick. >> thanks very much. in all the discussion over health care, there is not much attention to the other opinion issued today. let me remind you about it. it was united states versus alvarez and reuters is tweeting to us a reminder that in this decision today the supreme court struck down what's called the military medal lying law. it had to do with a whether or not it was against to law to

essentially lie about the honors that one has gotten for serving in the military. that was a law that was passed in 2006 and the congress said that it did not meet a first amendment challenge. sko that was the other action today from the supreme court. next up as we talk about the health care law and the court's review of that upholding it. we go to pennsylvania. matthew a republican. >> caller: thanks for putting me on. i am licensed in insurance sales. the main problem i see is call it individual mandate. there is with this law there is no reason for a company to have group policies anymore because we have an individual mandate, you must have an individual policy. same thing with insurance company. you must have that. even though it's constitutional, it makes no actually sense if

you look at the rules in the regulations when it comes to insurance because sfoons you go out of a group policy, your costs multiple. a large cash of money and everyone's costs are the same. how are they now with this individual mandate being constitutional make it so that insurance companies and these big corporations cannot take advantage of the very broad lang. there's not a lot of specific language in this act. >> matthew as a licensed insurance rep. the insurance companies have been taken a great deal of criticism from some people in society. i'm wondering what your view overall of the business that they provide to americans.

>> caller: it's very clear, i'm not currently with a company. i'm in between companies. i'm still licensed. but when it comes to all of this, you're talking about risk. without insurance companies each person would have to be individually assessed. you're talking about if one -- it might be different because of your family's history than mine. because of that if you don't have these group policies protecting people, your costs really go up. and when it comes to the services, it means that since everything is being judged on average, some people pay more. some people pay less. but at least it's the same price for everybody in the same company. >> what in your professional experience would be the most effective thing in controlling rising health care costs. >> really you have to really sit

down and figure out what is causing the cost. a lot this is actually the hospitals. when you're dealing with it you see the conch of some hospitals have -- it adds up. the insurance company is trying to minimize the cost because now with all these regulations, health care costs goes up, we now have to cover people who have no insurance or illegal aliens who have to be covered completely under the current law. >> matthew, thank you so much for calling from york, pennsylvania, who's been in the insurance profession out of his point of view to our discussion. we have about five more minutes or so until the speaker of the house comes out with his comments on today's ruling by supreme court. next is a call from ocean side, california. janet is watching us, a democratic. hi, janet.

>> caller: hi. i would like to say i'm ecstatic about this bill. i just think it's the right thing for the american people to look forward to and all the provisions coming to play. i had a preexisting condition about eight years ago. i completely wiped out my savings. i had a ppl insurance. so i'm very happy now that this bill passed. >> thanks, janet. ocean side, california. next from twitter, sean, who writes to us, the gop should count their lucky stars that aca was jep held. the american people will have what the rest of the developed world has. next is a call from here in washington, d.c. dominick is an independent. you're on. >> hi. i just have a question not for or against if bill itself. but the reading of the decision.

i know this last week i think the justices were reading the decision they made. i think even monday you played the justice reading the decisions. but today i didn't hear anything from chief justice. is that going to be made available at any time? >> they did not provide audio recordings of the decisions. you might have heard us replaying the oral arguments that were originally made. not the actual decisions themselves. >> we requested it, but it was denied. >> caller: none of the decisions of the term, the justices didn't read off anything? >> they read them, but there were not records made available. >> caller: thank you. >> next up a call from milford,

michigan. >> caller: thank you. >> you're on. >> caller: i just wanted to say that i support the affordable care act. and believe it to be constitutional. i'm really glad to hear this. as far as this goes, i've been waiting to register to vote and support obama's re-election until i heard this ruling. this is a huge -- the other thing i was confused about is what the supreme court ruling had to do with the individual mandate. >> thanks. we have had two people today who have spoken about the anti-injunction act and also what the essentially at the heart of tax matter and also the findings of chief justice on the individual mandate as a tax.

it might encourage you to go to our website. we have the former acting solicitor general who argued these cases from a legal perspective explain that the two could exist kmptably in the eyes of the law which is how the court ended up. next is a call from new york city. michelle is an independent. go ahead. >> caller: as an ind pempbt i have been spent kl about the affordable care act. after looking into it and cutting out the rhetoric from both sides, it was something that i decided i was going -- i was in favor of. now i just want to make a comment after listening to both sides making their, you know, their reaction to the supreme court decision especially in regards to romney and obama.

as someone who is very concerned about this upcoming election i really don't appreciate how the republican side is being in their rhetoric even leading up to the supreme court decision. they never really talked about the whole act and all the provisions that were in it. instead focussing on the individual mandate. i really do appreciate obama coming out with and trying to explain what this means for the american people who don't understand what's actually in this act. >> thanks for your contribution to the discussion. mike murphy on twitter writes this, big farma hospitals and insurance companies will party hardy tonight. they won. next is a call from willemington, delaware, manny, a

republican. >> caller: my name is manny. i'm a registered republican. i'm happy for the ruling today. i have two daughters and five grandchildren. and this probably will cover them in terms of health insurance. right now they have some health insurance through the state system for the children. but the coward daughters are not covered. by 2014 hopefully they'll have something covered. that's all i have to say. >> this tweet, he wants to engage me in conversation over that last caller saying there were reportings of the actually hearing. the aca hearing in front of the supreme court. there were. there were four days of them. and we covered all of those. and those are in you're interested available on our website. you can listen to the arguments being made in case you're interested. i understood that caller to be asked whether or not the decisions were going to be available. and we had petitioned to be able

to have same day coverage of the decisions and that request was denied. washington, d.c., this is beverly, a democrat. you are on the air. >> caller: hi. i'm calling because i'm concerned about the way they're presenting -- >> beverly, your tv volume is up. that's the feed back. can you hit the mute quickly. >> caller: i'm calling about the concerns of the medicare bill. i believe they are misrepresenting what the president and that bill are trying to do. they're not going to cut any of the services for people who receive medicare. they are trying to address the excessive spending in questionable spending of health care facilities doctors and insurance companies.

they're going to make sure their services are transparent and people are not padding bills so medicare does not have to have expenditures that are not necessary. >> thank you. next up is a phone call from sun city, california, scott as we await speaker of the house john boehner. you're on. >> hi. as an independent, i was very undecided on what i wanted to vote for for president.

they're so high and it's getting worse and worse. i don't see this helping our economy in any way shape or form. i don't see this helping lower any type of premiums. all i can see is later on down the line this is going to cause everybody's taxes to rise. those were people who either can't afford health insurance are going to be paying higher premiums. insurance companyings aren't going to take a hit on having to cover people who can't pay. that's going to come to the middle class. i have insurance. and i understand a lot of people that don't. but from time to time it's going to put us deeper in debt as the years go by. my grandchildren are going to be paying for this. but as an independent i was so undecided who i was going to vote for that after this decision, i'm voting for mitt romney. i don't believe this is going to

help our country in the long run as it stands. thank you. >> thanks very much. scott in sun city, california, giving us a preview of the november decision based on health care's ruling of the supreme court today. we are expecting the speaker of the house john boehner up on capitol hill give you a little view of what the room looks like as the reporters there are assembled awaiting the next press conference in a day with many of them. and when the speaker gets to the podium we'll bring you live coverage of that as our coverage here of the supreme court's closing day and its health care decision continues. next up a call from jacksonville, florida. this is nick who's a republican. welcome to our conversation. >> caller: i'm mainly for the bill. if people are required to pay the government so that they don't just jump on health care whenever we want to, why should anybody ever pay for health insurance to begin with instead of paying the government? and then you can't discriminate against people for having

preexisting conditions. so if anybody that's a chain smoker or an alcoholic can just jump on there with whatever disease, liver cancer and lung cancer and they can jump on health insurance wherever they want to, what's the purpose and having health insurance to begin with because the company's going to fail from the load of people that are -- that want to buy insurance for low cost. >> nick, thanks so much for your comments. we'll go now to capitol hill. good afternoon, thank you everyone for coming. earlier today i was at the supreme court to hear chief justice ronts issue a decision on the affordable care act. while we respect the court, we respectfully disagree with the decision. just because the court upheld

the law as constitutional does not mean it's a good law. in fact, it's a terrible law. unprecedented government power. fundamentally changing the relationship between the individual and government. and in fact, chief justice roberts acknowledged that. the court ruled today that in fact the affordable care act is a tax. it is the largest tax in america's mystery. we also know that cbo has estimated that up to 20 million americans will lose their employer health insurance. it makes it harder for small businesses to hire. as a mom and wife making decisions like many families in america we've seen our premiums squie rocket on average $2100 per family. for all of these reasons and more, the american people oppose this bill. in fact, the opposition has increased since the law was signed two years ago. that's why the republicans pledged to america to repeal this law. we are more determined today

than ever to repeal this law. the supreme court spoke today, but they don't have it be final word. the american people will have the final word in november. >> i'm a physician myself i'm an opt moll gist. i had the privilege of caring for patients in the hudson valley for 16 years. i'm here to represent patients and doctors across the country. my colleagues tell me that they are very concerned about their ability to deliver the care that their patients deserve and they have come rightly to expect under the terms of this law. in particular i'm worried about medicare pashs. i took care of many patients in my career. this law, this 2010 law takes half a trillion dollars out of

medicare. this directly comp kiezs their access to care. it is unacceptable. we are resolved here to honor the goals of that law which were the right goals to have good affordable health care for americans. the wrong law, we cannot afford to impose a $2 trillion bureaucracy on the american people and we can honor those goals in ways that make sense. we are here to put patience at the center of health care patients, their doctors, at the center of health care and not the federal government. we are more determined than ever and we will succeed. >> hello. reneigh elmers from north carolina representing the second district. yesterday i said a new chapter will be written for health care as a result of the supreme court court decision. it isn't the chapter i was expecting, but it is one that we

will continue in the fight. i came to washington because of obama care as a nurse and with my husband as a surgeon who is actually here in washington now we knew we had to fight against this for health care. as a mother i'm concerned about our children. as a nurse i'm concerned about our seniors. this keeps -- this decision keeps in place $500 billion being cut out of health care for medicare, for our seniors. and it also continues the independent payment advisory board which will be 15 bureaucratic unaccountable individuals who will make health care decisions for our seniors and for our citizens. the fight continues. the uncertainty remains. and the vision that has kept me awake so many times at night as

a nurse. see myself holding the hand of a patient while the doctor comes into the room and says that their life saving treatment will be denied because the independent payment advisory board deems it unnecessary. remains in my mind. we are and will remain committed to this. we will repeal obama care. and this will continue to be our fight and then the chapter for reform with efficient, accountable, responsible health care reform will be put in place. thank you. >> thank you and good afternoon. i'm anne marie bergle with new york's 25th congressional district. while the court ruled that this is a constitutional law that doesn't mean that it's good policy. i'm a registered nurse and since then in health care attorney. i've been in health care for-

most of my professional life. so health care to me is intensely personal but also it's just i'm very passionate about it. throughout the course of the last 18 months, i have had my hospitals, my physicians, i have had senior citizens. i have had nurses come to me and say this law is bad. it is going to bankrupt us. it is going to affect the way we are able to provide care for our patients. so it may be constitutional. but it's not good policy. and as legislatures our primary goal needs to be to enact laws that do what's best for the american people. that make sure that they have access to health care. that we do everything in our power to keep the cost of health care down. this law doesn't talk about tort reform. this law doesn't take any of the necessary steps to really reform the cost of health care in this nation. the president continues to say if you like your health care, you can keep it. well i'm here to tell you i hear

from the folks in the district all the time from my physicians, from hospitals, the concern that that's not going to be what happens. so many people and employers are going to put their employees into the exchange and they will lose their choice for health care in the united states of america that's unacceptable. it's unacceptable as legislatures and it should be unacceptable for the american people. so as was mentioned today begins the fight. today begins another debate. today begins the true debate on how we are going to reform health care in the united states of america. thank you so much. >> the president's health care law is hurting our economy. and driving up health costs it's making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. i think today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in

its entirety. what americans want is a common sense step by step approach to health care reform that will protect american's access to the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. and republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the american people and not repeat the mistakes that gave our country this harmful law. listen, health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people in our country. the number one concern for families and small business people is the cost of health insurance. and the republican health care reforms will in fact lower health care costs. as kathy pointed out, women make about 80% of the health care decision for the families in our country. republican health care reforms will ensure that families and doctors make health care decisions not bureaucrats here